State Intervention and Childhood Obesity Briefing Memo

Student's Name
Instructors Name
Course
Date
Activity 6: State Intervention and Childhood Obesity Briefing Memo
To: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Board
From: policy Analyst
Date: 27th-06-2022
Re: NJ State Intervention Childhood Obesity
Childhood obesity is a critical health issue in the United States since it affects one out of five children. Besides, some children are extremely affected than others depending on genetics or food consumption. Obesity is a complex condition and has unique risk factors, with secondary factors including physical activity, childcare, and school environments. It is a condition that comes from excess fat accumulation in the body. The condition is critical since it exposes children to other diseases such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease. Legally, any child has the right to be healthy regardless of financial situation or ethnicity. The condition is putting many American children at risk. For instance, between 2017 and 2021, more than 14.7 million American children were affected by obesity (Childhood Obesity Facts). The interventions are based on different factual elements. The prevalence is 19.7%; however, it is unique depending on the age. Children between 2 and 5 years have a 12.7% prevalence rate, and those between 6 and 11 years have a 20% prevalence rate (Childhood Obesity Facts). Besides, the prevalence rate depends on populations with Hispanic children as the major victims at 26%. Due to increased childhood obesity, debates on state intervention have become a common issue. The memo addresses arguments for and against childhood obesity and recommends a better position for AAP to ensure health restoration among American children.
Arguments for NJ State Intervention
Proponents of NJ state intervention in childhood obesity have specific reasons. The major argument is that obesity is a complex problem beyond family management, especially among low-class families. The scientific data indicates that obesity is a critical issue that needs well-established and programmed management and ethical guidelines (Abel 23). When one focuses on different newspapers, court cases, and media coverage, obesity is a critical issue that jeopardizes children's general health. The substance for concluding that obesity is a critical problem depends on its consequences. Different obesity consequences exist among the obese ranging from psychological to physical. Extreme a plethora of physical problems exists among obese children, including sleep apnea, hepatic steatosis, diabetes, and high cholesterol. Psychosocial risks are also a critical problem that obese children face due to lack of confidence and body shame. Most children may face different problems, such as depression and low self-esteem. The increased psychosocial and physical risks among obese children indicate its consequences on the American children and their health status. Therefore, state intervention improves the physical and psychosocial health of the children.
Additionally, state intervention in childhood obesity is necessary due to the failure of individualistic remedies. Majorly, people view obesity management to be an individual responsibility. For instance, the societies' take is that the cause of obesity is imbalance and irregular food diets. However, the condition is caused by different factors. Therefore, state intervention can be an alternative to restoring emotional and physical health regardless of the failures of the individualistic failures. Regardless of such intervention, there is a definite jurisprudence that addresses morbid childhood obesity in situations where the child's life is extremely in danger (Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger). Therefore, the major reason for state intervention is to address the failure of individualistic remedies and poor perceptions of obesity.
NJ state intervention on obesity is also necessary due to the failure of different institutions and increased children's death. The mortality rate of childhood obesity is four deaths per 10,000 persons (Oberman and Joel 301). Many institutions collectively have a significant role in eliminating obesity. Schools have a better platform for implementing intervention strategies since children spend more time in school than at home. For instance, the schools can offer nutritional education on the body mass index. However, from the previous research, minimal efforts are evident from such institutions. State intervention is necessary since it can ensure proper implementation of nutritional education and increase physical activities to reduce the effects of obesity among children. State intervention is also essential for enhanced child welfare. Therefore, the state can use the opportunity to enhance nutritional counseling and behavior therapy.
Proposers also argue that NJ state intervention can promote affordable nutritional counseling, which is significant since the children can identify the best food choices. For instance, states can establish reliable nutritional counselors to advocate for low-energy diets that prevent fat accumulation and enhance and restore the children's health. Nutritional counselors are not easily affordable to low-income families, and state intervention would make it possible. Besides, affordable behavioral therapy through state intervention can limit poor eating behaviors and reinforce effective physical activities. Therefore, state intervention on obesity through implementing nutritional counseling and behavior is necessary due to increased child death and failures of differ...